U.S. 1st Amendment rights distinguish between speech that is simply offensive and speech deliberately tailored to put lives and property at immediate risk.

In one of the most famous 1st Amendment cases in U.S. history, Schenck vs. United States, Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. established that the right to free speech in the United States is not unlimited. "The most stringent protection," he wrote on behalf of a unanimous court, "would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic."

Holmes' test  that words are not protected if their nature and circumstances create a "clear and present danger" of harm  has since been tightened. But even under the more restrictive current standard, "Innocence of Muslims," the film whose video trailer indirectly led to the death of U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens among others, is not, arguably, free speech protected under the U.S. Constitution and the values it enshrines.

According to initial media investigations, the clip whose most egregious lines were apparently dubbed in after it was shot, was first posted to YouTube in July by someone with the user name "Sam Bacile." The Associated Press reported tracing a cellphone number given as Bacile's to the address of a Californian of Egyptian Coptic origin named Nakoula Basseley Nakoula. Nakoula has identified himself as coordinating logistics on the production but denies being Bacile.

According to the Wall Street Journal, when the video failed to attract much attention, another Coptic Christian, known for his anti-Islamic activism, sent a link to reporters in the U.S., Egypt and elsewhere on Sept. 6. His email message promoted a Sept. 11 event by anti-Islamic pastor Terry Jones and included a link to the trailer.

I’m looking for the equivalent op-ed from the LA Slimes claiming that “Piss Christ” didn’t meet the First Amendment test either.I can’t seem to find it...can any fellow Freepers help me out with my search skills?

“Or does the First Amendment depend entirely on non violent listeners?” You got it! We are being blackmailed by terrorists into suppressing free speech. And it is much more than “disappointing” that this appeared in “a paper in a movie town”; it is terrifying.

“Or does the First Amendment depend entirely on non violent listeners?”

Yes, that’s the absolutely insane implication she’s making.

Yell louder at how offended you are and threaten violence over it, and be rewarded by foolish, stupid people who say you’re reaction justifies removing free-speech protection from the thing in question.

U.S. 1st Amendment rights distinguish between speech that is simply offensive and speech deliberately tailored to put lives and property at immediate risk.

You don't really need to read beyond this point. The premise is so flawed it isn't even in the same universe as reality.

Whatever this guy's goals were, his efforts WERE NOT tailored to put lives and property at immediate risk.

They were tailored to spread what this guy thought was truth regarding Islam.

This idiot writer is doing nothing more than making the case that the First Amendment needs to be carved up nearly as badly as the Second Amendment already is.

Lets see, the Fourth Amendment means nothing anymore. The Second Amendment is under attack daily. The first Amendment is now fair game. Our President doesn't bother to defend the Constitution, and he refuses to do his duty under Article IV Section 4. This bitch is simply one more person who doesn't give a fig about our God given rights.

But even under the more restrictive current standard, "Innocence of Muslims," the film whose video trailer indirectly led to the death of U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens among others, is not, arguably, free speech protected under the U.S. Constitution and the values it enshrines.

Unbelievable that a major mass-circulation daily would take this position. If this isn't protected under the 1st Amendment what is?

18
posted on 09/18/2012 6:46:44 AM PDT
by Rummyfan
(Iraq: it's not about Iraq anymore, it's about the USA!)

Holmes’ words are very often used in attempts to quash politically incorrect speech. The key word in his statement, the one that the facists like to omit, is “falsely”. It IS protected speech, for one to shout “FIRE!” in a crowded theater, so long as it is actually ablaze. The lie that this movie trailer, IN ANY WAY “led to the attacks” is a damned outrage. These Camel-humpers can blame their bad behavior on anything that anyone says if this is allowed to stand.

The first debate has to be the turning point.
Mittens must turn into an ultimate warrior.
Mitt needs to ignore the moderators questions and march to his own drummer.
Example:
Q: Are you concerned that your gaffe about criticizing the President of the United States of America’s Mid-East policies caused the rape and murder of US citizens abroad may make you an accessory to murder?

A: The Mid East policy of the unknown person who has gained control of both the Presidency and the Media is to unite the moon worshiping inhabitants under the banner of the Muslim Brotherhood which was spawned seventy years ago by none other than Adolph Hitler.
Obama is a fraud and is the enemy of the Constitution and plans to make all Americans either subservient to his evil god or dead. Either way it does not matter to scum such as this impostor that now threatens all that is good and decent in the world.
The current regime has declared war on freedom, on free enterprise, and on freedom of thoughts and expression. The only thing that Obama and his evil minions, and I do not exclude the moderator, have accomplished in the last few years is proof that Freedom is fragile. WE THE PEOPLE must unite to stop this vile creature from dowsing the last lamp of freedom on the planet. This is the moment in history, that YOU decide the fate of your children and grandchildren.
America has two centuries of being an exceptional
role model of freedom and advancement of all that is good and decent, because when the time of defending our inalienable rights from attack, our ancestors have stood shoulder to shoulder to squash the enemy of good. The enemy of justice. The enemy of opportunity. The enemy of freedom.
My fellow Americans, now is the time to stand up and be counted. The time is NOW to throw out this regime and to right the wrongs of their demented plans.

Sorry, we don’t have to take into account the behavior of the sub-humans who follow a demon-possessed pedophile prophet. We just need to kill them in job lots when they threaten or annoy us. And we need a president who will this.

By Left reasoning “Piss Christ” doesn’t fail the Holmes standard for free speech because no protected group is likely to maim or murder in reaction to it. Moslems, being a protected group, get to define the limits to free speech by what they are willing to maim and kill in reaction to. This, of course, is a total ban on free speech.

But even under the more restrictive current standard, "Innocence of Muslims," the film whose video trailer indirectly led to the death of U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens among others, is not, arguably, free speech protected under the U.S. Constitution and the values it enshrines.

Unbelievable that a major mass-circulation daily would take this position. If this isn't protected under the 1st Amendment what is?

34
posted on 09/18/2012 6:56:19 AM PDT
by Rummyfan
(Iraq: it's not about Iraq anymore, it's about the USA!)

Sorry, we dont have to take into account the behavior of the sub-humans who follow a demon-possessed pedophile prophet. We just need to kill them in job lots when they threaten or annoy us. And we need a president who will do this.

I thought it was worth repeating. Well said!

40
posted on 09/18/2012 7:03:48 AM PDT
by Rummyfan
(Iraq: it's not about Iraq anymore, it's about the USA!)

There is quite a difference between the real danger posed by a fire in a crowded theater and the irrational, emotional reaction of irrational people thousands of miles away to nothing but words or images.

If speech in the US must be limited by how irrational nutcases in any part of the world might react, then we are allowing the most irrational people on earth to determine what our freedoms should be.

Or does the First Amendment depend entirely on non violent listeners?

Exactly! I can imagine a situation now, where someone shouts "filet mignon" at a vegan convention and the resulting stampede and rioting results in any words referencing meat products to now be hate speech and not protected by the 1st Amendment.

We are either right on the edge or over the edge where foolishness is becoming the law and subjugation is being mistaken for peace.

43
posted on 09/18/2012 7:05:31 AM PDT
by ScubieNuc
(When there is no justice in the laws, justice is left to the outlaws.)

I remember her mother from the 1970s (Antonia Handler Chayes). She was an Undersecretary of Defense for Carter. She pushed the rail-mobile MX system in Utah, to much opposition.

It's a weird family, but one commenter on another site got it rite: the woman is an egomaniac.

Her only real job in life was being an NPR reporter, and that probably says all we need to know, but she has written some good commentary about the prevalence of massively corrupt "mafia governments" throughout the so-called developing world.

All in all a strange mix of neo-Bolshevist politics and warped sensibilities about the use of power.

That she thinks she can chatter-speak the First Amendment out of existence where it isn't convenient for her shows her to be just another Leftist thugette in the end.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.